What name is better? I tend to like Golden State better because it sounds more smooth. When I say the San Francisco Warriors out loud, it almost seems like it's one of those hard to say words such as Toy boat or Unique New York. I feel that even if the Warriors are in San Francisco, Golden State is still a good name. People will still know that they are in San Francisco. Maybe people who have never watched bball won't know but players and fans will pretty much all know, imo. Would it make a difference? Also, what about the Golden State Warriors of San Francisco?

Golden State or San Francisco, it's the same thing to me, since the team will be located in San Francisco. Though, the thing I don't like about name Golden State us the fact that there are other teams stationed in California, and a lot of people cheer for them...so why would we be the only ones to represent the whole country? It's not big deal, just the only minus I see there.

And I don't like that last type of name...it's too long and there's no need for that.

1, the East Bay fans - already feeling betrayed by the new arena being constructed in SF - will take their level of offense to an even higher level if the team is renamed to exclude them.

2, cause its unique. The Warriors are the only team in the big 3 American sports to be associated with a regional nickname, rather than a city or state. There's no need to screw with it (although, if you listen to Guber, you begin to understand that at least one of the owners is lobbying hard for a name change).

I don't understand what the problem is. It's a general name because the team belongs to the entire Bay Area. It's not San Francisco's team, it's not Oakland's team, it's not an East or West Bay team. It's the Golden State Warriors. The Bay Area is the backbone of this state. Los Angeles gets a lot of ink, but when it comes down to it, the technology is here, the music is here, the sports teams that matter are here. Sacramento is a historical state landmark, Los Angeles is the loud, glamorous little sister, we've all heard about the beaches in San Diego and Santa Cruz and Santa Barbara... but the Bay Area is the capital of this state. It's the most diverse, progressive, forward-thinking market on the West Coast. And there's no need to cannonize one part of our region over the over; San Francisco alone does not encompass the entire Bay.

I'm actually surprised to hear a Californian object to the name, hummbabybear. Typically, it's only been East Coasters that I've noted as complaining about our name. What's your reasoning?

Stairway Man wrote:The Warriors will indeed get the job done and make their move to SF right?

The reason I ask this is because some people are in complete doubt that it will manifest although the announcements have been made.

Well, if you're talking strictly about the move, then yes. It's coming. 2017, by the sounds of it.

Lacob and Guber held a press conference to introduce their recently purchased San Francisco waterfront property and detailed out a rennovative plan with the full intention of it being - among other things - a basketball stadium for the Golden State Warriors. Guber, being the entertainment mogul, wants it to be the West Coast's version of the Sydney Opera House: a venue with impeccable acoustics and state of the art everything. But at it's very base is a function and that function is the future home of the Warriors.

People (read: journalists) are immediately calling their bluff, citing the project's enormous cost and the phone books of yellow tape the ownership group would need to bypass in order to fully support a structure of that magnitude on what is, as it stands, a decaying pier under the Bay Bridge. But if you ask me, these journalists are just stirring up an underdog story so they can trumpet Lacob's horn all the louder after he gets it done. As a media darling, there's no reason anyone in the press would bet against Lacob unless they are flat-out playing devil's advocate: a tact that Tim Kawakami and Ray Ratto (both of whom have claimed this project won't get done) have famously employed before.

I would be down for the San Francisco Warriors. The term "Golden State" refers to the entire state of California and not just for the Bay Area. Its too general. As great as the fans are here, the Lakers are still the team in California. It gives the Warriors a lack of identity. Some of the biggest names played for the San Francisco Warriors...Rick Barry and Wilt Chamberlain. They changed their name when they moved to Oakland so its only fitting that they reclaim the name when they move back. Their logo has the Golden Gate Bridge on it as well as some nifty alternate Golden Gate Orange jerseys, which are synonymous with the city of SF. Not Oakland and certainly not the entire state of California.